I'm interested in what this means for the performance desktop segment - there seems to be a big gap if lynnefield is going to be the only quad core chip on non-enthusiast chipset, yet it is only a 45nm chip and if 32nm is ahead of schedule it's going to have even shorter a product life as the 32nm dual core part replaces it. I can't think Intel would want to keep producing 45nm chips when they have a smooth 32nm process. So either they're leaving the performance desktop market to AMD, or there's something they're not telling us - a cut down quad core 32nm part for the perfomance mainstream perhaps?

I'm interested in what this means for the performance desktop segment - there seems to be a big gap if lynnefield is going to be the only quad core chip on non-enthusiast chipset, yet it is only a 45nm chip and if 32nm is ahead of schedule it's going to have even shorter a product life as the 32nm dual core part replaces it. I can't think Intel would want to keep producing 45nm chips when they have a smooth 32nm process. So either they're leaving the performance desktop market to AMD, or there's something they're not telling us - a cut down quad core 32nm part for the perfomance mainstream perhaps?

If I was a betting man I would put money on lower-speed, fewer-core derivations of Gulfstown, probably coming in a bit early.

AMD's doing nothing much in terms of innovation for the desktop space in 2009 and 2010 if that slide is to be believed.

It doesn't really need to - Deneb has a good enough architecture to compete in the performance desktop with the usual clock speed ramps over time.

Essentially, high end quad-core Deneb is going to fight dual-core clarksdale. Unless Intel really do stick around with 45nm production after 32nm is mature.. that's not something I'm really aware they've done before though. Why they don't shrink lynnefield to 32nm is beyond me.